143 replies to this topic

[Loomis]

I think we're looking at a typical "let's see if there's a better actor for Bond, or we'll give it Pierce" scenario.

A lot of members here and at other sites mention that this happened to Connery, Moore and now it's happening to Brosnan.

I think EON are looking at all sides of the coin until they've made their final choice.

I think you're right. And that's obviously a very different kettle of fish to "Brosnan's 100% out of the picture forever, no doubt about it".

[Bondian]

I think you're right. And that's obviously a very different kettle of fish to "Brosnan's 100% out of the picture forever, no doubt about it".

Thank you Loomykins!.

I think EON are doing their "three pillow trick" and not rushing to make up their minds. They know they've got plenty of time until SONY/MGM hand over the UK average wage of

[Loomis]

[quote name='Bondian' date='14 October 2004 - 20:04']I think EON are doing their "three pillow trick" and not rushing to make up their minds. They know they've got plenty of time until SONY/MGM hand over the UK average wage of

[Bondian]

Yes, it's all about pounds and pence.

Look, I'm sorry if I'm coming across as pigheaded, but, Brosnan, if you're out, get one of your minions to put a "Farewell to 007" message on your website. Eon, issue a statement saying that Brosnan is no longer Bond. It's not as though I don't want to believe he's gone (quite the reverse, actually), but is asking for official news really asking for the moon?

You're not a pighead at all Loomis, but I think Brosnan's still keeping his options open like EON.

I know what you mean about his Official Website, but actors would never announce their retirement from a certain role.

Still, it seems quite possible that no one's really decided anything yet.

You're right Loomis, and let's hope it's worth the wait.

Cheers,


Ian

[Loomis]

I know what you mean about his Official Website, but actors would never announce their retirement from a certain role.

Really? To be honest, I don't know. I believe you know a bit about the acting game - is announcing retirement from roles something that actors just don't do?

Still, here's an excerpt from Martinis, Girls and Guns: Fifty Years of 007 by Martin Sterling and Gary Morecambe:

But, on 12 April 1994, Timothy Dalton announced his retirement from the role. He explained that his three-picture contract with Eon had expired in 1990 after the preproduction on his third Bond film was halted because of the litigation between Danjaq and MGM.

'Even though the Broccolis have always made it clear to me that they wanted me to resume my role in the next James Bond feature, I have now made this difficult decision,' Dalton said. 'It has now been six years since the last James Bond film and eight years of worldwide identification with the 007 image. As an actor, I believe it is now time to leave that wonderful image behind and accept the challenge of new ones.

'The Broccolis have been good to me as producers. They have been more special as friends.'

Eon's press release reciprocated Dalton's best wishes:

We have been advised by Timothy Dalton that after starring successfully in two James Bond films he has decided that he does not wish to return as the star of the next film in the series.

Over the past eight years we have enjoyed a very happy personal and professional relationship with Timothy. In his portrayal of the James Bond character he made the role his own by bringing Bond back to the hard-edged style of the early Ian Fleming novels to delight audiences around the world.

We regret Timothy's decision. We have never thought of anyone but Timothy as the star of the seventeenth James Bond film. We understand his reasons and will honour his decision. We look forward to announcing our plans for the seventeenth Bond film in the near future.

--------

Now, Dalton was actually fired. He was given the boot, pure and simple, but was permitted to tell the world that he was walking away from Bond of his own free will. And the fact that Brosnan was revealed as his replacement less than two months after Dalton announced his "retirement" from the Bond role gives the lie to Eon's claim that "We have never thought of anyone but Timothy as the star of the seventeenth James Bond film".

Why didn't Dalton say "I've been sacked"? Why didn't Eon release a statement saying: "We've decided to let Timothy Dalton go because, following the disappointing grosses of LICENCE TO KILL, we no longer think he'd be a commercially viable choice for James Bond"? Obviously, that would have been pretty poor PR for both parties.

But that's essentially the sort of pretty poor PR we have today. Compare the management of Dalton's exit to the current Brosnan fiasco. Whatever unpleasantness may have gone on behind the scenes, neither Dalton nor Eon lost face publicly.

According to Atticus17F: "There's no way (Eon)'re going to lose face just by keeping their own counsel, though. If anyone's going to come out of this looking stupid, it's Brosnan." While it's true that Brosnan's the one who's coming across as someone with a bad case of sour grapes, while others are maintaining their dignity, Broccoli and Wilson have done nothing to counter the accusations that they're in "paralysis" and don't know what they're doing.... and heaven knows there are enough people only too happy to seize on Broz's comments in order to ridicule Eon.

Still, I really think Bondian, and others who suggest that various movers and shakers in the Bond world may be trying to keep their options open, may be onto something. I reckon Brosnan may be on the offensive not because he was dropped from the Bond role, as such, but because he was told that he was not necessarily a shoe-in for BOND 21 any more, that the producers had started to consider other actors.

*Sigh* But what do I know? I'm just speculating.

[Atticus17F]

I do think they should do it to keep up appearances - should have done it, at least (probably too late now). I've heard people who don't follow the Bond series or even pay much attention to film news saying: "I gather the Bond producers don't know what they're doing. They don't know how to continue the series." And they probably won't be too enthusiastic about the prospect of BOND 21.

Besides, what are prospective Bond actors thinking? "Perhaps I shouldn't touch Bond with a bargepole, since Eon'll just boot me out without a word once I've outlived my usefulness."

So you're telling me that, unless Eon come up with some explanations sharpish, a bunch of non-Bond fans who don't follow film news will refuse to see a Bond film that hasn't even been made yet? And as if that's not bad enough, Eon could be shunned by a gaggle of anxiety-ridden actors who think a massive press announcement is required whenever they part with a prodco? I think you're winding me up, Loomis.

There will be no official announcements until there's something to announce and the lack of one in the meantime will not do the series any harm at all.

[Bondian]

Edit

Sorry Loomis,

I didn't read your last paragraph.

Yes, I believe that's right about the "shoe-in". EON must be scaling actors to see if there's anything out there that could top Brosnan. I'm not a Brosnan lover, but who else is there available that would bring in the $$$?.

I think EON are looking at saving money on Bond 21, and if they can get another actor who'll be accepted as Bond number 6, they'll save an arm and a leg.

Great post Loomey!.

Maybe Timothy Dalton was told to announce his retirement?. Also, I feel it's the right thing to do to clarify matters. Brosnan's as much in the dark as we are.

Obviously then, Pierce is going to be still around for a long time.

Cheers Mate,


Ian

[Loomis]

I do think they should do it to keep up appearances - should have done it, at least (probably too late now). I've heard people who don't follow the Bond series or even pay much attention to film news saying: "I gather the Bond producers don't know what they're doing. They don't know how to continue the series." And they probably won't be too enthusiastic about the prospect of BOND 21.

Besides, what are prospective Bond actors thinking? "Perhaps I shouldn't touch Bond with a bargepole, since Eon'll just boot me out without a word once I've outlived my usefulness."

So you're telling me that, unless Eon come up with some explanations sharpish, a bunch of non-Bond fans who don't follow film news will refuse to see a Bond film that hasn't even been made yet? And as if that's not bad enough, Eon could be shunned by a gaggle of anxiety-ridden actors who think a massive press announcement is required whenever they part with a prodco? I think you're winding me up, Loomis.

No, Bond will endure. BOND 21 won't be shunned. Eon won't be added to an actors' blacklist.

However, Eon is a business, and like all businesses needs good PR. What's baffling about this current situation is that Eon has always seemed fiercely protective of its image. Just look at all those smug, controversy-free, Patrick Macnee-narrated puff piece ads for the genius of Cubby Broccoli and the never-failing magic touch of Eon that pass for "making of" documentaries on the DVDs.

Let's say you're Michael G. Wilson. You've talked things over with Barbara Broccoli, MGM bigwigs and whoever else, and you've all come to the decision, for whatever reasons, that you're probably not going to want Brosnan for BOND 21. Would you rather have a nice and polite Dalton-style parting of the ways with Broz, or the current one-way dialogue of public bitching from an obviously disgruntled actor? Which scenario do think would reflect better on Eon?

Now, for all I know it may have been the case that Eon tried to get Brosnan to disappear gracefully from the scene on amicable terms, but that Brosnan said angrily: "Sod this nice PR rubbish! You people are having the nerve to tell me, after I've starred in four highly successful films for you, that you're considering other actors, so I'm just going to go off and say whatever I want about the situation, whenever I want."

Okay, under such circumstances, Eon would clearly have been unable to orchestrate a smooth and pleasant Daltonesque exit for Broz. But why not respond to Brosnan's public criticisms by issuing a press release confirming Brosnan's departure? Presumably, since they've not had Brosnan under contract since DIE ANOTHER DAY, they don't actually owe him anything. I don't see why Eon's hands seem so tied. Unless, of course, they'd never actually intended to rule him out completely for BOND 21.

[Bondian]

No, Bond will endure. BOND 21 won't be shunned. Eon won't be added to an actors' blacklist.

However, Eon is a business, and like all businesses needs good PR. What's baffling about this current situation is that Eon has always seemed fiercely protective of its image. Just look at all those smug, controversy-free, Patrick Macnee-narrated puff piece ads for the genius of Cubby Broccoli and the never-failing magic touch of Eon that pass for "making of" documentaries on the DVDs.

Let's say you're Michael G. Wilson. You've talked things over with Barbara Broccoli, MGM bigwigs and whoever else, and you've all come to the decision, for whatever reasons, that you're probably not going to want Brosnan for BOND 21. Would you rather have a nice and polite Dalton-style parting of the ways with Broz, or the current one-way dialogue of public bitching from an obviously disgruntled actor? Which scenario do think would reflect better on Eon? 

Now, for all I know it may have been the case that Eon tried to get Brosnan to disappear gracefully from the scene on amicable terms, but that Brosnan said angrily: "Sod this nice PR rubbish! You people are having the nerve to tell me, after I've starred in four highly successful films for you, that you're considering other actors, so I'm just going to go off and say whatever I want about the situation, whenever I want."

Okay, under such circumstances, Eon would clearly have been unable to orchestrate a smooth and pleasant Daltonesque exit for Broz. But why not respond to Brosnan's public criticisms by issuing a press release confirming Brosnan's departure? Presumably, since they've not had Brosnan under contract since DIE ANOTHER DAY, they don't actually owe him anything. I don't see why Eon's hands seem so tied. Unless, of course, they'd never actually intended to rule him out completely for BOND 21.

Superb intellectual posting my friend!.

May I please add this;

OK, we have a different Director for each new Bond film. Is EON looking at different actors for each film that will be released every four year?. Would they have to pay actors like Brosnan an incremental fee?. No. Ah, could this be the future of James Bond?.

Just a thought.

Cheers,

Crazy dude!.

[Loomis]

Yes, I believe that's right about the "shoe-in". EON must be scaling actors to see if there's anything out there that could top Brosnan. I'm not a Brosnan lover, but who else is there available that would bring in the $$$?.

Who else would guarantee bums on seats? Well, apart from Hugh Jackman (who I'm sure would be just as expensive as Brosnan, if not more so), I can't really think of anyone. Clive Owen's the only other guy I can think of who'd be a truly terrific choice for Bond, but he's not exactly box office dynamite.

I don't know (well, obviously I don't know) whether a desire to save cash is the chief motivating factor for the search for a new Bond, but it seems to me that Eon may have really bungled things, leading to the "Brosnan goes ballistic" situation of the past few months.

Possibly, Brosnan felt that he had BOND 21 sewn up, that the part was his for the asking (I'm sure all of us here felt the same thing). And then Michael G. Wilson or someone said to him: "Look, Pierce, we think you're a terrific Bond, and you've done us proud over the years, but we're going to be looking into the possibility of another actor for the next film." Perhaps this message wasn't conveyed to Brosnan tactfully enough, or was conveyed to him at an unduly late stage in the game. Perhaps, to Brosnan, it was akin to being told by a wife or girlfriend of several years' standing: "Look, I just want to tell you that I'm not necessarily going to be with you this time next year - while I hope things will continue to be great between us, I thought I'd let you know that I'm going to be investigating other men just in case I find someone I think I might prefer to you." Perhaps Brosnan just felt extremely hurt and jealous and was thus prompted to go off like a "loose cannon on deck" and talk about paralysis, opaque situations and so on.

As ever, though, what do I know?

[Alex Zamudio]

I wanted Pierce to return, but I have made peace with the fact he won

Edited by Alex Zamudio, 14 October 2004 - 10:29 PM.

[Athena007]

p.s. Hey were is Qwerty?

He

[Bondian]

Edit

Sorry, I've just thought of this..

EON, back in 1962 were out to make an impression. Now, with the escalating cost's and the English Governements "move out of England" 'fine' of making one of these monsters, maybe EON are more reluctant to splash out and risk so much money on a Bond that COULD loose money. They could retire and live happily in Canvey Island!.

Yeah, I know it sounds depressing.

OK, this was my original post.

Who else would guarantee bums on seats? Well, apart from Hugh Jackman (who I'm sure would be just as expensive as Brosnan, if not more so), I can't really think of anyone. Clive Owen's the only other guy I can think of who'd be a truly terrific choice for Bond, but he's not exactly box office dynamite.

I agree Henry, I would plumb for Hugh Jackman, but I have a strong feeling in my waters that we're either going to get one more Bond film with Brosnan or with another actor. I really cannot see it being worthwhile churning out these expensive action packed episodes without a damed good convincing actor. Whether it's Hugh Jackman, Clive Owen or Michael Fish ( the UK now retired newsreader ) it's ain't gonna make any difference because who's going to be next.

It's my honest opinion ( except from the odd frame from Roger and Tim ) we haven't seen a 100% James Bond since Connery. Also the modern way of film making is much to be desired.

If I were EON, I would announce the end of the James Bond series and either retire, or make other movies. "Try Another Day" was financially and hormonally successful yes, but it tried to delve into other territories with it's different style of editing and the massive deficit on originality.

I don't know (well, obviously I don't know) whether a desire to save cash is the chief motivating factor for the search for a new Bond, but it seems to me that Eon may have really bungled things, leading to the "Brosnan goes ballistic" situation of the past few months.

Although Peter Lamont seemed to be assertive enough to say that pre production is in existence it doesn't mean to say that actual filming would take place. Usually EON ( except for TLD's ) knew who would be the next James Bond, but I believe that EON are starting to scrape the barrel and James Bond is on it's last legs

Possibly, Brosnan felt that he had BOND 21 sewn up, that the part was his for the asking (I'm sure all of us here felt the same thing). And then Michael G. Wilson or someone said to him: "Look, Pierce, we think you're a terrific Bond, and you've done us proud over the years, but we're going to be looking into the possibility of another actor for the next film." Perhaps this message wasn't conveyed to Brosnan tactfully enough, or was conveyed to him at an unduly late stage in the game. Perhaps, to Brosnan, it was akin to being told by a wife or girlfriend of several years' standing: "Look, I just want to tell you that I'm not necessarily going to be with you this time next year - while I hope things will continue to be great between us, I thought I'd let you know that I'm going to be investigating other men just in case I find someone I think I might prefer to you." Perhaps Brosnan just felt extremely hurt and jealous and was thus prompted to go off like a "loose cannon on deck" and talk about paralysis, opaque situations and so on.

That's a darn good point my friend.

We're talking about a business who's only interest in one man James Bond. How many Employers employ one person on the basis that they'll then employ another 200 into a project?. Would they want to engage another actor to carry on the mantle without some sort of guarantee that they'll get their cash back?.

EON are infamous on trying to get the right actor, and really now Hugh Jackman is the only contender because he's making quite a name for himself. Also, he looks darn good and has that mechanism about him that Bond should have.

As you so rightly say, maybe Jackman would command the same sort of pay packet as Brosnan, but could he sustain four films and continue to make a profit.

I think EON are looking at a tighter budget on Bond 21. They've realised that too much money was waisted on crappy CGI and static actors with no charisma.

Like you, I'll say return James Bond to earth, and make a realistic, awe inspiring gripping thriller, after all, isn't this what James Bond's all about?.

Cheers Henry,


Ian

As ever, though, what do I know?

Much more than a lot of people old man.

Edited by Bondian, 14 October 2004 - 11:36 PM.

[Atticus17F]

Let's say you're Michael G. Wilson. You've talked things over with Barbara Broccoli, MGM bigwigs and whoever else, and you've all come to the decision, for whatever reasons, that you're probably not going to want Brosnan for BOND 21. Would you rather have a nice and polite Dalton-style parting of the ways with Broz, or the current one-way dialogue of public bitching from an obviously disgruntled actor? Which scenario do think would reflect better on Eon?

You're quite right and I agree with you that this whole episode is a bit odd, but I still don't see what Eon would have to gain by firing out a press release right at this moment. The situation with Dalton was a bit different as he knew the score and bowed out gracefully. He issued a small statement, they issued a small statement and everybody went home happy. Just imagine if, after everything Brosnan is alleged to have said, both parties gave a speech proclaiming how wonderful the other is? They'd all be laughed at the world over!

[Turn]

[quote name='Alex Zamudio' date='14 October 2004 - 22:27']I wanted Pierce to return, but I have made peace with the fact he won

[Tarl_Cabot]

I don't think he was "fired". The deal was up. The obligation was over. "Fired" would be if he was on set and they said: Pierce, Your Fired!

He was simply not asked to return.Not a reflection on his merrits as a 007 actor but the role is supposed to be re-cast ever so often to keep a youthful yet mature actor in the role(33-48 is ideal).He was too old for it since they don't want to make the mistake of keeping a 50 something around.

[Bondian]

I don't think he was "fired". The deal was up. The obligation was over. "Fired" would be if he was on set and they said: Pierce, Your Fired!

He was simply not asked to return.Not a reflection on his merrits as a 007 actor but the role is supposed to be re-cast ever so often to keep a youthful yet mature actor in the role(33-48 is ideal).He was too old for it since they don't want to make the mistake of keeping a 50 something around.

I agree Tarl. Good post Mate.

Cheers,


Ian

[hrabb04]

Why didn't they fire the producers instead?

[Bondian]

Why didn't they fire the producers instead?

Maybe SONY/MGM are looking for another Production Company that could make future Bond films?.

[Tarl_Cabot]

The whole crew needs to be taken out to the shed.

[Tim007]

To come back to the topic and stop blaming whoever anyone wants to blame , a rather interesting article from Mr Kiss Kiss Bang Bang's Steven Woodbridge.

The first part of the article is pretty much the same as CBn's article from yesterday. Notice that not only we called it 'fired' (which is even today a paraphrase of Pierce's own statement ), but MKKBB does so as well: "Far from voluntarily quitting, Brosnan revealed that he was effectively fired from the role."

The second part of the article is a personal evaluation of Woodbridge (oh, and an interesting Colin Salmon news piece).

However the producers spin it, in my view the decision to change actors undoubtedly takes the Bond franchise into uncertain waters. I sincerely hope they are not just motivated by the desire for Back to top #82 [dark] [dark] Commander RNVR Commanding Officers 6239 posts Location:Sydney, Australia Posted 15 October 2004 - 12:29 PM That's a great article, Tim, and I must say I agree with everything Stephen said. It's a pity Brosnan won't get a proper end to his tenure, and it really is a mystery why the producers have opted to dump a more-than-willing Brosnan, particularly after the success of Die Another Day. This would be a first for the series, too, with a critically- and publicly-accepted Bond actor denied the opportunity to return. Connery was sick of it, we all know what happened with Lazenby, I think with Moore it was very much a mutual decision, and whilst Timothy Dalton was evidently fired, neither of his films had achieved great success. But Brosnan's a guaranteed success, and he wants to come back for more! There's no hurling cash his way, as there was with Connery and Moore. I don't know, I just don't see the logic here. If it ain't broke, etc... Nonetheless, the production of Bond 21 may be the most exciting since GoldenEye; let's hope it will live up to whatever hype there is. Back to top #83 Mister Asterix Mister Asterix Commodore RNVR The Admiralty 15519 posts Location:38.6902N - 89.9816W Posted 15 October 2004 - 12:56 PM Why didn't they fire the producers instead? Maybe SONY/MGM are looking for another Production Company that could make future Bond films?. [mra] Or perhaps they didn Back to top #84 hrabb04 hrabb04 Lt. Commander Veterans 1706 posts Posted 15 October 2004 - 01:42 PM After nearly every actor in the world turns down the chance to play oo7, Barbara B, one day while at her dentist, looks up into the bright light that is shining into her eyes, barely able to see the tall, dark gentleman about to drill into her teeth.... The next thing we all know.... Unknown former dentist to play James Bond in next Bond Adventure! Back to top #85 Loomis Loomis Commander CMG Veterans 21862 posts Posted 15 October 2004 - 01:44 PM [quote]The probable loss of Pierce for Bond 21 also has important implications concerning the successful support Back to top #86 Bondian Bondian Commander Veterans 8019 posts Location:Soufend-On-Sea, Mate. England. UK. Posted 15 October 2004 - 01:49 PM [quote][mra] Or perhaps they didn Back to top #87 Loomis Loomis Commander CMG Veterans 21862 posts Posted 15 October 2004 - 01:56 PM Of course without EON we wouldn't have James Bond!!!.  Noooooooo!!!! Don't you see, that's precisely what "they" want you to think! Back to top #88 Bondian Bondian Commander Veterans 8019 posts Location:Soufend-On-Sea, Mate. England. UK. Posted 15 October 2004 - 02:05 PM Noooooooo!!!! Don't you see, that's precisely what "they" want you to think! Ha-ha, actually I should of said without Cubby Broccoli there's no James Bond!. Back to top #89 Loomis Loomis Commander CMG Veterans 21862 posts Posted 15 October 2004 - 02:13 PM Noooooooo!!!! Don't you see, that's precisely what "they" want you to think! Ha-ha, actually I should of said without Cubby Broccoli there's no James Bond!. Erm.... Ian Fleming, Ian? See what you mean, though: Albert R. Broccoli was the father of the cinematic 007 (much as it pains me to type that, since in doing so I'm buying into all the nauseating "Worship Cubby!" Eon propaganda [that paints Kevin McClory as a bad guy and seems to downplay the contribution of Harry Saltzman]). Mind you, I'm sure some other movie mogul would have bought the rights to Bond if Broccoli hadn't done so, and might have done an even better job. Who knows? We might now be looking forward to BOND 40 instead of BOND 21, and there might have been 17 Best Picture winners in the Bond series! Back to top #90 Bondian Bondian Commander Veterans 8019 posts Location:Soufend-On-Sea, Mate. England. UK. Posted 15 October 2004 - 02:21 PM Erm.... Ian Fleming, Ian? Who's he, a member of the crew?. Ha-ha!!!. See what you mean, though: Albert R. Broccoli was the father of the cinematic 007 (much as it pains me to type that, since in doing so I'm buying into all the nauseating "Worship Cubby!" Eon propaganda [that paints Kevin McClory as a bad guy and seems to downplay the contribution of Harry Saltzman]). Mind you, I'm sure some other movie mogul would have bought the rights to Bond if Broccoli hadn't done so, and might have done an even better job. Who knows? We might now be looking forward to BOND 40 instead of BOND 21, and there might have been 17 Best Picture winners in the Bond series! I agree Loomis, and we should mention Harry Saltzman and Terence Young for "licking Connery into shape"!. It would be fascinating to know how other Producers would handle the series, and could they improve on things. If we could take Lucas/Spielberg for example, maybe they would of only made a few and may of combined several Fleming Novels into each film?. Cheers Mate, Ian Back to top Prev Page 3 of 5 1 2 3 4 5 Next Back to Casino Royale (2006) Reply to quoted posts     Clear

[[dark]]

That's a great article, Tim, and I must say I agree with everything Stephen said.

It's a pity Brosnan won't get a proper end to his tenure, and it really is a mystery why the producers have opted to dump a more-than-willing Brosnan, particularly after the success of Die Another Day.

This would be a first for the series, too, with a critically- and publicly-accepted Bond actor denied the opportunity to return. Connery was sick of it, we all know what happened with Lazenby, I think with Moore it was very much a mutual decision, and whilst Timothy Dalton was evidently fired, neither of his films had achieved great success. But Brosnan's a guaranteed success, and he wants to come back for more! There's no hurling cash his way, as there was with Connery and Moore. I don't know, I just don't see the logic here. If it ain't broke, etc...

Nonetheless, the production of Bond 21 may be the most exciting since GoldenEye; let's hope it will live up to whatever hype there is.

[Mister Asterix]

Why didn't they fire the producers instead?

Maybe SONY/MGM are looking for another Production Company that could make future Bond films?.

[mra] Or perhaps they didn

[hrabb04]

After nearly every actor in the world turns down the chance to play oo7, Barbara B, one day while at her dentist, looks up into the bright light that is shining into her eyes, barely able to see the tall, dark gentleman about to drill into her teeth....

The next thing we all know....

Unknown former dentist to play James Bond in next Bond Adventure!

[Loomis]

[quote]The probable loss of Pierce for Bond 21 also has important implications concerning the successful support

[Bondian]

[quote][mra] Or perhaps they didn

[Loomis]

Of course without EON we wouldn't have James Bond!!!. 

Noooooooo!!!! Don't you see, that's precisely what "they" want you to think!

[Bondian]

Noooooooo!!!! Don't you see, that's precisely what "they" want you to think!

Ha-ha, actually I should of said without Cubby Broccoli there's no James Bond!.

[Loomis]

Noooooooo!!!! Don't you see, that's precisely what "they" want you to think!

Ha-ha, actually I should of said without Cubby Broccoli there's no James Bond!.

Erm.... Ian Fleming, Ian?

See what you mean, though: Albert R. Broccoli was the father of the cinematic 007 (much as it pains me to type that, since in doing so I'm buying into all the nauseating "Worship Cubby!" Eon propaganda [that paints Kevin McClory as a bad guy and seems to downplay the contribution of Harry Saltzman]). Mind you, I'm sure some other movie mogul would have bought the rights to Bond if Broccoli hadn't done so, and might have done an even better job. Who knows? We might now be looking forward to BOND 40 instead of BOND 21, and there might have been 17 Best Picture winners in the Bond series!

[Bondian]

Erm.... Ian Fleming, Ian?

Who's he, a member of the crew?. Ha-ha!!!.

See what you mean, though: Albert R. Broccoli was the father of the cinematic 007 (much as it pains me to type that, since in doing so I'm buying into all the nauseating "Worship Cubby!" Eon propaganda [that paints Kevin McClory as a bad guy and seems to downplay the contribution of Harry Saltzman]). Mind you, I'm sure some other movie mogul would have bought the rights to Bond if Broccoli hadn't done so, and might have done an even better job. Who knows? We might now be looking forward to BOND 40 instead of BOND 21, and there might have been 17 Best Picture winners in the Bond series!

I agree Loomis, and we should mention Harry Saltzman and Terence Young for "licking Connery into shape"!.

It would be fascinating to know how other Producers would handle the series, and could they improve on things. If we could take Lucas/Spielberg for example, maybe they would of only made a few and may of combined several Fleming Novels into each film?.

Cheers Mate,


Ian